Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

Saiph · Jul 22, 2006

first, on the nature of your explainations: your analogy will serve for this. Your answers have so far been in the same spirit as "the cat did it", as you say. However, such a response presupposes that I know what a cat is, and how it can scratch you. In that light, I have no previous knowledge to bring to bear on this particular issue, and so your brief answers don't do a lick of good. Now, onto the discussion at hand, as you've brought up a better explaination: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />the earth and moon are free-floating bodies in relative motion to each other. every object on the planet is already constantly accelerating, moment to moment, equal with the earth's expanding surface. you and i are being constantly accelerated. a stone already accelerated by the expanding earth, thrown up by your arm, goes up, slows, turns around, and then is constantly accelerated towards the ground as the earth expands up to meet it.<hr /></blockquote> Okay, that makes some sense, and could indeed replicate the motion of non-orbital objects. However, if I throw the object really fast to the side, faster than the earth's expanding surface can catch it (since the earths surface is curved, even a horizontal throw will gain height if thrown far enough)...but I throw it slower than escape velocity (known to be 11km/s as observed with our spacecraft)....what causes the path to curve around the earth instead of maintaining a straight line? your answer using the moon in it's orbit (i.e. a really big rock in my example): <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />it is essentially constantly held from actually falling into the earth<hr /></blockquote> Held from falling how? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />as it's velocity and relative motion to earth keeps it away from the earth,<hr /></blockquote> ignoring the redundancy of velo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Jul 23, 2006

In other words k is not the same at t = 0 as it is at t = 86, 400, whick SHOULDN'T be the case according to Bonz, but it is. Under Bonz's assumpsions k would have to be the same at all times in order for proportions to remain the same. But under his other assumptions (the outward acceleration is constant) this cannot be the case. don't pat yourselves on the back too long. there is an absolute expansion and relative expansion of the bodies. in the theory, the two are not mutually exclusive but happening at the same time. i talked about this before. i derived the absolute rate in prior posts. as well, a sheet of paper, relative to the earth, is much smaller. therefore, from moment to moment, the sheet of paper expands outwardly far less than does the earth. this is why smaller objects possesses far less "gravity" than larger --their accelerative expansions are relatively less to retain relative proportion and size to larger objects. to properly arrive at such a relationship, an equation that takes both the absolute and relative rates of expansion must be created, and so far nobody, including myself (yet), has presented this equation. so although your math is "correct," it does not whatsoever take into account the things i just said. and therefore derives results not applicable. as objects double in size, for example, the "unchanged" distances between them would effectively half in size. all objects increase in size by the factor of (1+n2U), where U = universal expansion rate; n = number of seconds elapsed since original distance was measured between the 2 objects. as well, the distances between all objects scale down by the same (1+n2U). i will elaborate on this later, taking into account absolute expansion/relative expansion.

bonzelite · Jul 23, 2006

the earth's surface has to expand at an accelerated rate yes, it does. correct. to the extent that, by now, the acceleration is FAR beyond light speed. like WAY beyond it. like ccc

bonzelite · Jul 23, 2006

what causes the path to curve around the earth instead of maintaining a straight line? the earth's expansion up to it.

alokmohan · Jul 23, 2006

Keep on increasing your posts.

bonzelite · Jul 23, 2006

i intend to. particularly when recent claims to discredit me are entirely erroneous.

nova_explored · Jul 23, 2006

"the two objects are expanding towards each other, as all objects are. in free-floating space, there is only relative motion between bodies. there is no inherent inner gravitational force. as long as an object, such as the moon, has enough velocity to overcome the earth's expansion rate, it will orbit the earth and not "crash" into it. the moon perpetually overcomes this "falling into the earth" demise by just, just having enough specific geometrically "sweet" attributes that it stays aloft. otherwise, like the falling stone that fails to overcome the relatively larger expansion of earth, it would come to the earth." when i read this, it seems like expansion is more a companion of a pre-existing force. your theory allows centripetal force to play a role, and as Einstein pointed out in his general theory, centripetal force is exactly identical to gravity, and where one is present, it cancels the other out, but only locally. In the case of the rotating earth, this spin gives it such a centripetal force which we measure at 9.8 m/s. Newton knew this as well and hypothesized that such a force would act under the inverse square law (which was, until then, associated with physical properties.) your theory allows this, which works well. however there is the issue (and maybe brought up earlier), and consequently where Newton found insight into developing his own theories- Kepler's laws of motion. Our orbits are eliptical, not concentric. Kepler's second law in particular - "As a planet travels in its elliptical orbit, its distance from the Sun will vary. As an equal area is swept during any period of time and since the distance from a planet to its orbiting star varies, one can conclude that in order for the area being swept to remain constant, a planet must vary in speed. The physical meaning of the law is that the planet moves faster when it is closer to the sun. This is be <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nova_explored · Jul 23, 2006

i get where you are coming from for an expansion theory though. the question of a force acting on large bodies really isn't in question in mainstream science though. it is a question of how. The strong, weak, and electromagnetic, all deal with charge in relation to mass. Gravity is different. but the fact that such a force is acting is without question. Newton theorized that force based on mass. Einstein based the force through space-time in relation to mass. Or, more aptly put, how mass influences (or disrupts) the space around it. And space itself would have very real properties its own. out of that we have only hypothesis as to what is really happening. so space could expand and contract in relation to the mass. Both Newton and Einstein are right. And as for who invented the theory of gravity- that would belong to Newton. Many, kepler among them, knew that some force was acting on the large scale but it was Newton that mathematically precisely measured and quantified the pheonemena. i know this is all so mundane, and beyond salvage at this point in this thread, but bonz, until you can have a model that accurately explains all pheonemena mathematically, the better theory will stand. that's how science works. and people here, as you have seen, are going to raise issues until you show successfully a different solution. You may believe it, and it could very well be the case, but you have to prove it (mathematically ofcourse). it's never enough to say, it just is.... which is why Newton is crowned the creator of a theory of gravity. He proved it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

eudoxus18 · Jul 23, 2006

Bonz, you are failing to see what I proved in that post. You made two statements about expansion: 1. The expansion has an acceleration exactly equal to what others would say is gravitational acceleration. On earth this is 9.8 m/s^2. 2. In the time it takes for earth to double its radius, the moon must also double its radius. In other words 1. if r(t) is the radius at a time t, v(t) is the rate at which the radius is changing at a time t, and a(t) is the acceleration of the radius, a(t) = g where g is the gravitational acceleration. 2. k (the ratio of the earth's radius and the moon's radius) will be the same at every time t. My proof showed these two statements contradict each other. If (2) is true, then k (the ratio of earth's radius and the moon's radius) must always be the same. But using (1) I proved that even just a day k would about double. I didn't even get into the relative or absolute expansion. Whatever they are, you yourself said the earth and moon must both double in the same amount of time, and their expansion rates are equal to what others would call "gravitational" acceleration. I only considered those two statements and showed they contradict each other. Look at my proof and show me where it's wrong.

Saiph · Jul 23, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />what causes the path to curve around the earth instead of maintaining a straight line? the earth's expansion up to it.<hr /></blockquote> that won't cause the path to curve around the earth, merely slow the objects apparent recession. the object will never appear over the opposite side of the earth merely due to it's own motion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

derekmcd · Jul 23, 2006

Look at my proof and show me where it's wrong. I've tried that approach a few times... doesn't work. Seems basic math isn't allowed in some theories. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

bonzelite · Jul 23, 2006

but you dismissed that without a sound explanation for varying speeds and elliptical orbit. gravity acutally very simply explains such. do you mean as in gravity assists? expansion explains that. gravity does not. there is no such thing happening via a gravitational force. there is no momentum transfer. for example, a craft accelerated in gravity assist would, then, be slowed on it's path of departure from the vicinity of the planet, as the planet pulled back on the craft. the craft would not undergo a net speed increase via gravity assist. yet this logic is never questioned. conversely, it has become an axiom and matter of fact. when, really, it is a fantasy. there is nothing hypocritcal about what i am saying at all. i respond to both hostility or easy-going curiosity. i would much rather have a fireside chat and open idea exchange than a flame war as well. for the most part, it has been rather civil. and what is really at stake for standard believers? their ideas are fully accepted. and will remain so probably for another century. the few who do warm to some of the points i am making are then reached, and the majority of believers in standard-models-of-existence will hold fast to their ways --no matter what some guy on a hobbyist forum purports. and indeed, what i am talking about requires that one abandon, at least temporarily for sake of argument, their entire way of seeing physical reality. and i think a good many people continue to revisit this premise and challenge it, not, perhaps, that it creates for everyone an airtight alternative (as not even standard theories combined are airtight --far, far from it) --but that it raises extremely salient points about the flawed logic and glossed-over assumptions that create the foundation of our cosmology. for example, momentum transfer is entirely fabricated and non-existent a happening. it simply does not take place. i will get t

derekmcd · Jul 23, 2006

do you mean as in gravity assists? expansion explains that. gravity does not. there is no such thing happening via a gravitational force. there is no momentum transfer. for example, a craft accelerated in gravity assist would, then, be slowed on it's path of departure from the vicinity of the planet, as the planet pulled back on the craft. the craft would not undergo a net speed increase via gravity assist. yet this logic is never questioned. conversely, it has become an axiom and matter of fact. when, really, it is a fantasy. It is not a fantasy. If the planet was stationary, then I would agree with you. However, planets are orbiting in motion and that is where the momentum is either gained or lost. Gravity assists can also be used to slow spacecraft down. If you approach a planet in the opposite direction of its orbit, the spacecraft with lose momentum. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

bonzelite · Jul 23, 2006

that won't cause the path to curve around the earth, merely slow the objects apparent recession. the object will never appear over the opposite side of the earth merely due to it's own motion. yes, it will exactly create a curved path around the earth. with enough relative speed, it may go all the way around the earth. or in the case of a projectile or rock, will hit ground at some point. the nature of relative motion is curved paths. not straight lines.

bonzelite · Jul 23, 2006

stationary or moving, does not matter. it does not matter because momentum transfer is not happening. bodies do not possess an absolute momentum of any kind. there is only relative motion between free-floating bodies. and since things are in relative motion, then, a craft coasting exactly along side a planet, matched "in motion," will be essentially indistinguishable from a static planet and static craft. so to claim that "motion" changes everything is erroneous and never scrutinized for what it is.

derekmcd · Jul 23, 2006

since things are in relative motion, then, a craft coasting exactly along side a planet, matched "in motion," will be essentially indistinguishable from a static planet and static craft. This is true, the net speed relative to the planet remains unchanged, however, relative to the sun which the planet is orbiting, the directional velocity is changed. This can not be done with simple expansion and a spacecraft traveling in a straight line. Bonz... c'mon. These things HAVE been scrutinized and verified as to not be erroneous... at least to date nothing erroneous has been found and to make statements like that without solid evidence that we can't pick apart is contrary to your original premise of coming up with a new theory. It would seem that everytime we find a flaw, you simply come up with a statement minus proof to cover yourself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

Saiph · Jul 24, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />yes, it will exactly create a curved path around the earth. with enough relative speed, it may go all the way around the earth. or in the case of a projectile or rock, will hit ground at some point. the nature of relative motion is curved paths. not straight lines.<hr /></blockquote> umm...okay. Now, why or how does this happen? You haven't said anything other than it will happen. Also, that last statement that relative motion is curved paths, not straight lines, went out the window with galileo, as natural philosophers since aristotle thought everything moved in circles until galileo showed otherwise (and has been shown since). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nova_explored · Jul 24, 2006

So what you are saying Bonz, is that you ascribe one of the defaults in the graviational theory (concerning ellliptical orbits and focii) as being built falsely on a premise of 'momentum transfer'? i mean you just can't say there is no 'momentum transfer', which is change in velocity, in light of a very real phenomena where the velocity does change and is measurable. we measure Mars, Mecury, Venus, Saturn, et al. and what we find is a shared value of all orbits- a constant that mathematically relates mass and distance. it is so simple and elegant. and expansion theory is only harking back to as Alohkham said, the flat earth model days, convuluting the simple functions we observe. and all of this is outside the fact that you haven't shown how relative expansion explains orbits on the large scale in the first place. gravitational force does... i mean motion is not a fuzzy subject on the large scale. but yes, there is relative motion to every other object (...until we get into the subatomic world...). we haven't even gotten past the surface yet and you are eager to let every aspect of the universe just simply fall under a pretext of...expansion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Jul 25, 2006

umm...okay. Now, why or how does this happen? You haven't said anything other than it will happen saiph, i've been saying why the whole time: throw up a stone. throw it anywhere. it will curve back to the earth as it accelerates down to meet the ground. the rock meets the earth, as the earth's surface expands up to meet the rock. the rock accelerates because it is actually the earth's surface that is accelerating (as well as the rock's surface as it, too, expands). relative motion is curved paths, as this is the geometric nature of objects. this is corroborated as orbit insertions and orbit corrections are made without reference to gravity or mass. "GM" is an invention of Newton and is not needed to project orbital paths.

bonzelite · Jul 25, 2006

velocity does change and is measurable. yes, the change in v is measurable but is not due to gravity or momentum transfer. momentum transfer is within the realm of Newtonian based principles, and these ideas must be replaced. the constants "GM" as stand-ins for "K," yes, certainly mathematically corroborate mass from a distance. but the values derived are incorrect and approximations only. GM is a fabrication and lifted from the original constant of K, that being purely geometric. the current equations "work" because they are masquerading as hacked and combined derivatives of v^2R=K and the centripal force equation.

eudoxus18 · Jul 25, 2006

You still haven't addressed my proof, Bonzelite. You said two things: 1. The acceleration of the expansion is what we would call "g" 2. Earth and moon must both double in size in the same amount of time. I used these two statement and showed they were contradictory. Where's the flaw? And what about the conservation of energy?

Saiph · Jul 25, 2006

yes, the thrown rock works so long as it doesn't go fast enough to hit orbit. Once it gets into orbit, where it will never touch the earth again, the expanding model doesn't make sense. In the expanding model, you cannot throw something all the way around the world. as for the mass being irrelevant and a fabrication by newton...you do know they've done experiments with massive metal spheres and sensitive scales? Putting the massive sphere under one end of a hanging weight that's balanced carefully (with the sphere far away) will cause the balance to tip towards the massive sphere. It's how you corroborate newtons theory of gravity and work towards determining G. How's the expansion model work with that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Jul 25, 2006

the expanding model doesn't make sense. In the expanding model, you cannot throw something all the way around the world. the effect of objects that are thrown to the sky, curve back down, then fall to earth is exactly the same thing as an orbit. except in that case it falls to earth. otherwise, orbits are happening due to the same geometric effects. i've already shown that GM are not necessary, and have nothing at all to do with orbits, or insertion into orbit. moreover, once G is jettisoned as an idea, then M cannot be derived from G. so mass cannot really be accurately determined from afar. we only have gross approximations. some near. some very way off. this premise requires you abandon conventional wisdom and see the situation entirely differently. and there is evidence for it's validity throughout the points i have been making. about the sphere experiment, please provide a link or explain it differently. i'd like to address that.

bonzelite · Jul 25, 2006

Where's the flaw? in that, thus far, no equation has yet taken into account absolute and relative expansion insofar as universal expansion rate is concerned. i have long ago explained that this is similar to compounding interest on money. but that has been disdained. but is nearly exactly the same idea. an actual equation for atomic expansion is more complex because it must take into account (1 +n2U) where U is the atomic expansion rate. it is expressed as the absolute expansion/relative expansion. for example, D --as the "original distance between 2 object's surfaces"-- is made lesser the next moment to D', their combined absolute expansion amounts of n2UR1 and n2UR2, after n seconds, becomes: D' = D - n2U (R1 + R2) and the relative expansion, as stated, is 1 + n2U therefore D' = D - n2U (R1 + R2)/1 + n2U where U = .00000077/s2

eudoxus18 · Jul 25, 2006

BTW the first person to do that sphere experiment was Cavendish, and he came up with 6.7 (approx.) for G. And compound interest is an exponential increase, which as I've stated CANNOT be the force we're experiencing on earth, otherwise we'd be dead. And I don't care about relative or absolute expansion rates, Bonz. I took two things you said and showed they contradict. Look at my proof and tell me where my flaw is.

Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

eudoxus18

Guest

Saiph

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

eudoxus18

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

eudoxus18

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page